Ron Paul on Abortion

Morning-after pill same as birth control pill; not immoral

Q: Sen. Santorum said he would talk about what "no president has talked about before--the dangers of contraception." Your thoughts?

PAUL: As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequence of
government control of medical insurance. The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level. But along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way.
I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills. The pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society.

Right to privacy is explicit, but not for contraception

Q: [to Paul] Sen. Santorum believes that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception, although he's not
recommending that states do that.

SANTORUM: The Supreme Court created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution.

PAUL: No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy.
You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this; it was originally
written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it's not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.

More laws don't solve problems on abortion

Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just
as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape.
And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill?
Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies

One thing I believe for certain is that the federal government should never tax pro-life citizens to pay for abortions. The constant effort by the pro-choice crowd to fund abortion must rank among the stupidest policies ever, even from their viewpoint.
All they accomplish is to give valiant motivation for all pro-life forces as well as the antitax supporters of abortion to fight against them.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 6
, Apr 19, 2011

Deregulate the adoption market

Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference in reducing abortion. This would make it easier for nonprofit groups to arrange for adoptive parents and for them to
compensate the mother enough to absorb the expenses and opportunity costs associated with carrying the child to term. Small changes could make a large difference here.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 8
, Apr 19, 2011

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the
states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have
proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach
are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life

In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.
Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in
this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the
value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.

Day-after pill allows individual moral choice

My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. If we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change. The law will not accomplish that.
However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion.
Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner.
These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice.

Abortion is murder

A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a parasite.but the same argument justifies infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the womb.newborns require even more attention & care.

People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted.

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution,
Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60
, Apr 1, 2008

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, Iím a real stickler for civil liberties. Itís academic to talk about civil liberties if you donít talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of
the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, Ďoh why are you saying that?í and
I say, Ďwell, thatís not a political statement -- thatís a scientific statement that Iím making!ď

I know weíre all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes
I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesnít go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But itís academic to talk about civil liberties if you donít talk about the true protection of all life. So if youíre going to protect
liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But itís been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it
would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. Thatís not a political statement, but a scientific statement that Iím making. Weíre all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but
sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says ďno abortion,Ē it doesnít go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We donít need a federal
abortion police. Thatís the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person thatís committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I donít think that should be up to the president to decide.

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what
I do, so thereís a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if thereís an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate
, Sep 17, 2007

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to reversing prior court decision where activist
judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?

HUCKABEE: Yes.

TANCREDO: Yes.

COX: Yes.

BROWNBACK: Yes.

PAUL: Yes.

HUNTER: Yes.

KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate
, Sep 17, 2007

Save ďsnowflake babiesĒ: no experiments on frozen embryos

Q: Our children were adopted as embryos. They were snowflake babies, which means that for the first part of their lives, they were frozen embryos. Can you look at them now and honestly tell me that it would be
OK with you if someone used them in medical experiments and snuffed out their little lives? Is that your position?

HUCKABEE: No.

TANCREDO: No.

COX: No.

BROWNBACK: No.

PAUL: No.

HUNTER: No.

KEYES: No.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate
, Sep 17, 2007

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they will neither ďperform nor actively promote abortion.Ē Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy to organizations within the US?

HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q: Itís the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. Itís an American law.

BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reaganí
policy that we wouldnít use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: Itís actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually
negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution.
The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Ron Paul on Voting+Sponsorships

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

Iím surprised that I donít have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would
happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a presidentís signature. Itís a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, letís just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate
, Sep 17, 2007

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion.

Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.

Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain.
We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;

were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;

were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and

were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use.
I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state

Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion

Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied

Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian

Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt.

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as ďpartial-birthĒ abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life.

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Q: What is the RLCís position on abortion?

A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, youíll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.
The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans.

A bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes:

No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.

None of the funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

No credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion.

No health care service furnished or operated by the Federal government may include abortion.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using non-federal funds.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any nonfederal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, so long as only non-federal funds are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program.

The limitations shall not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor; or in the case the woman is in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Prohibit federal funding for abortion.

Paul signed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

TITLE I: Prohibiting Federally-Funded Abortions and Providing for Conscience Protections

Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or the woman would be place in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

TITLE II: Elimination of Certain Tax Benefits Relating to Abortion

Disqualifies, for purposes of the tax deduction for medical expenses, any amounts paid for an abortion.

Excludes from the definition of "qualified health plan" after 2013, for purposes of the refundable tax credit for premium assistance for such plans, any plan that includes coverage for abortion.

Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood.

Paul co-sponsored Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

Congressional Summary:Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Wikipedia Explanation:Title X of the Public Health Service Act, titled "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" is a US government program dedicated to providing family planning services for those in need. Title X provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority for services is given to persons of low-income.

Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence:It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of
millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.

OnTheIssues Explanation: Federal money is never explicitly provided for abortions. But Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, paid for via private funds. At issue is the "fungibility" of money: Planned Parenthood can use federal funds to supplement their budget and hence free up other funds for abortion. This bill would end that practice.

Supports the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge.

Paul signed the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge

The Susan B. Anthony List's 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge asks declared presidential candidates to commit to key pro-life goals if elected to the presidency in 2012. While this is by no means a complete list of all pro-life objectives, having a President that actively supports these pro-life aims will keep up the momentum to achieve our ultimate goal of ending abortion in this country. The Pro-life pledge:

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.